Research

Using administrative data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings linked to the 2011 Census of England and Wales, this paper explores the labour market performance of first-generation immigrants and compares it to that of UK-born employees. By focusing on various labour market outcomes and distinguishing immigrants based on their years of residence in the UK, the analysis reveals that more recent immigrants, on average, earn less, work longer hours, and are more likely to be employed in low-skilled occupations or temporary employment compared to observationally equivalent UK-born employees. However, the labour market performance of immigrants with ten or more years of residence in the UK is more comparable to that of their UK-born counterparts. These patterns are similar for males and females, but there is considerable heterogeneity in terms of ethnicity, country of birth, and reason for migration, as well as across the pay distribution. 

We study the effect of the introduction in 2015 of UK Shared Parental Leave policy on the uptake and the length of leave taken by fathers. Using the UK Household Longitudinal Study and Regression Discontinuity in Time, we show that the reform has not affected uptake or length of parental leave reinforcing questions as to its effectiveness.

Exploiting rich nationally representative longitudinal data from the China Family Panel Studies this paper explores the relationship between overeducation, earnings and job satisfaction among graduates in China. We find consistent evidence, across multiple measures of overeducation, of wage and job satisfaction penalties that are not explained by personal and work-related characteristics. Despite attention within the literature, we find a modest role for differences in academic subject and, cognitive and non-cognitive skills as drivers of these penalties. In contrast, controlling for time-invariant unobserved heterogeneity reduces the size and, in many cases, removes the statistical significance of overeducation penalties, aligned to the importance of other unobserved individual heterogeneity.

This paper examines the impact of reporting frequency requirements of gender pay gap transparency legislation using a sudden COVID-19-induced one-year suspension to legislation in the UK. We find evidence that annual reporting is effective. Compared to organisations that did not report during the suspension year, organisations that had already reported prior to the suspension had a 6% lower gender pay gap a year later. This is driven by a relative increase in females in the top organisational pay quartile. Further analysis suggests the effect lasts for more than one year and supports the hypothesis that annual reporting is most effective in organisations with weaker pre-existing pressures to narrow their gender pay gap through female representation and voice.

*An earlier version of this paper was circulated with the title  The ongoing impact of gender pay gap transparency legislation

Since April 2017 UK employers with over 250 employees have been required to publicly report their gender pay gap each year. We exploit this recent source of panel data on employer-level gender pay gaps to provide new insights for the established literature on the gender pay gap based predominately on employee information. More specifically, we explore the factors associated with changing organisational gender pay gaps in the period immediately following transparency. Consistent with information, reflection and pressure brought by the legislation, we find greater narrowing of gender pay gaps in organisations with a larger initial gender pay gap. Moreover, this relationship is magnified over time, consistent with gradual and longer-term adjustment. We further find evidence that inter-organisational comparisons matter. For organisations with higher gender pay gaps than the average of their intra-industry comparators, lower comparator gender pay gaps are associated with further narrowing, suggesting relative comparisons enabled by transparency per se provide a channel through which the impact of the legislation operates.

This paper estimates labor supply elasticities of married men and women allowing for heterogeneity among couples (in educational attainments of husbands and wives) and explicitly modeling how household members interact and make labor supply decisions. We find that the labor supply decisions of husbands and wives are interdependent unless both spouses are highly educated (college or above). Couples with high education, the labor supply decisions of husband and wife are jointly determined only if they have pre-school age children. We also find that labor supply elasticities differ greatly between households. The participation own-wage elasticity is largest (0.77) for women with low education married to men with low education, and smallest (0.03) for women with high education married to men with low education. The participation own-wage elasticities for women with low education married to highly educated men and for women with high education married to highly educated men are similar and fall between these two extremes (about 0.30 for each). For all types of couples, participation non-labor family income elasticity is small. We also find that participation cross-wage elasticities for married women are relatively small (less than -0.05) if they are married to men with low education and larger (-0.37) if they are married to highly educated men. Allowing for heterogeneity across couples yields an overall participation wage elasticity of 0.56, a cross wage elasticity of -0.13 and an income elasticity of -0.006 for married women. The analysis in this paper provides a natural framework to study how changes in educational attainments and household structure affect aggregate labor supply elasticities.